He’s doing exactly what he should be doing right now, acting like he’s going to be the one running.
Sometime between August 12th and 19th is when he needs to withdraw, for health reasons. The week before the Democratic National Convention. Dropping out a few days before the convention turns it from a pro forma circle jerk into a media frenzy, energizing the base less than 3 months from the election.
They are getting banned from public spaces any time they bring them up. So instead of learning why they are wrong, they are instead sent off to find similarly delusional people. Censoring (moderating) feeds the echo chamber.
No, those delusions should be rebutted, so that when others arrive at a similar hypothesis, they learn where they went wrong.
Freedom of speech is also a principle. Generally speaking, the operator of a forum should strongly value that principle, and refuse to censor any natural person’s speech.
You are correct that an individual’s right of free speech isn’t infringed by by private censorship. The right to free speech is infringed by incarceration or other official sanctions. You absolutely should have the right to free speech on that private platform, as you should not be jailed for your statements made on it.
Note: not all forms of expression qualify as speech. CP and death threats, for example, are forms of violence, not forms of speech.
Tell me you didn’t watch the debate without telling me you didn’t watch the debate. The GOP wants the Democrats to stick with this particular horse.
Biden isn’t going to win. The Republicans are mad as hell, and the Democrats are bored.
What we need is Trump spending the next 5 weeks telling us how old and senile Biden is, how bad an old, senile president will be. And then we tag in a 40-something candidate, making Trump the only geriatric left on the ballot.
A random Millennial could run on an “Ok, Boomer” platform and beat Trump.
The choice doesn’t have to be between the narcissist and the potato.
In about 6 weeks, the Democratic National Convention will be held in Chicago. With a democratic incumbent, that’s a boring little party that the entire nation ignores. But, if Biden drops out of the race in about 5 weeks, that convention turns into a media circus, and the entire base has a fresh new candidate winning the news cycles.
I’ll take the entrails of a priest.
Joenald Triden
It is not supposed to be easy to convict someone. It is a very high bar for a reason.
like if I shoot someone in self defense, I have to prove there was a threat to my person instead of me not liking their hat.
No, you don’t. The last state to place the burden of proof on you for defending yourself was Ohio, but they repealed their unconstitutional “Affirmative Defense” requirement in 2019. In every state, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove that your actions were not defensive, not yours to prove they were.
Likewise, it is the prosecutor’s burden to prove he was fraudulently “convinced”.
They absolutely can question intent. They just can’t use an “official act” as evidence of intent. They can use all the “unofficial acts” they want to demonstrate intent. And, once they decide that the bribe was an unofficial act, the door is opened to use it for intent as well.
Take conspiracy for example. The elements of conspiracy are:
Two or more people agreed to commit a crime
All conspirators had the specific intent to commit the crime
At least one of the conspirators committed an overt act
Trump conspires with false electors to rig the election. Trump’s is immune to charges stemming from his conversation with Pence, but he is not immune to charges of conspiring with false electors. His communication with Pence cannot be considered evidence of intent (#2), But it can be the overt act (#3) of the conspiracy.
You reversed the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is the prosecutor - not the accused president - who has to do the proving.
That is presumptively out of bounds for trial. That is a rebuttable presumption.
If our aim is to limit unneeded abortions
The only “unneeded” abortions are those that are forced on the mother against her will. Every other abortion is “needed”. (We have not previously considered forced abortions in this discussion, and I see no compelling reason to delve into them now. I mention them only in demonstration that the mother’s needs are valid, so the only abortion that is “unneeded” is the one that she has determined to be unneeded: an abortion forced upon her without her consent.)
The second part is dangerous because it could lessen actual amount of help for victims.
The only “help” our hypothetical victim has requested is an abortion, and she hasn’t requested it from you. She has requested it from someone ready, willing, and able to provide that help. Neither she nor that provider want you to be involved at all. She hasn’t asked for your help; she doesn’t want your help. Why are you choosing to involve yourself? What “help” are you going to force on her against her will?
About last point: I choose to presume consent
I’ll stop you right there. The rest of your argument is likely true, but the truthfulness of that second part does not justify the first part. You don’t get to make that “choice”.
The only time it is reasonable to presume consent is when you are actually presuming innocence. Where an individual is accused of committing a crime by acting without consent, presumption of innocence requires us to presume consent until proven otherwise beyond the shadow of a doubt. As our situation does not involve anyone accused of a criminal act, there is no valid justification to presume consent.
#You may never infer consent from silence.
If your personal code of morality only allows you to accept abortion in the case of non-consent, you may presume non-consent. You can satisfy your own morality by accepting the possibility that she was raped, and just doesn’t want to talk about it. You can simply presume she meets your arbitrary criteria; you have no need to actually prove her status to any degree of certainty.
The court only has to “presume” it was an official act. That presumption is rebuttable. The prosecutor would present an argument that such a bribe was not an “official” act; the judge is free to accept that argument.
Use of the military is delegated to him under article 2, his use of that power cannot be questioned.
The military is strictly limited on what kind of operations it is allowed to perform. The commander and operators of Seal Team 6 would be prosecuted if they obeyed an unlawful order, even if it came from their Commander in Chief. The president does not have the power to order Seal Team 6 to violate the Posse Comitatus act. The President does not have the power to violate his political rival’s right to due process. A prosecutor can argue that such an egregious order falls well outside the scope of the office, and constitutes an “unofficial act”. The courts are free to rule accordingly.
The dissents are reading far more into the majority opinion than is actually there. I suggest you read the majority opinion a little more closely.
When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune
In all three of those cases, the question as to whether those actions are required or permitted under the law is put to a judge, and that judge is free to rule that they are not. The trial judge is free to rule that they are “unofficial” acts, and deny that immunity.
This ruling is terrible for Trump.
The president is immune for any act he is authorized to perform: an “official” act. Any act he is not authorized to perform is an “unofficial” act. The immunity ruling doesn’t even slow down the criminal prosecutions against him. It’s not even a speed bump.